Apple has set itself the ambitious goal of making all products carbon neutral by 2030. An important milestone on this path was the launch of the Apple Watch Series 9, SE and Ultra 2 in 2023. The company advertised these models as its first carbon neutral products. But now Apple is facing a lawsuit. Buyers of the watches accuse the company of not being as carbon neutral as Apple claims. They speak of a misleading advertising strategy and are demanding consequences.
Sustainability is a big issue, especially in the technology industry. More and more companies are trying to make their products more environmentally friendly in order to meet both legal requirements and consumer expectations. Apple is one of the pioneers in this area and is heavily promoting its climate strategy. But how reliable are such statements? And what does "climate neutral" actually mean? The lawsuit against Apple could play an important role in bringing more transparency to the discussion about sustainable technology products.
The lawsuit against Apple: buyers' allegations
A group of seven buyers has sued Apple. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Jose, California. The plaintiffs are from California, Florida and Washington DC and argue that they would not have bought the Apple Watch Series 9, SE or Ultra 2 or would have bought them at a lower price if they had known the truth. In their opinion, Apple deceived customers by making false and misleading claims about the carbon neutrality of the watches. According to the lawsuit, Apple's claim of carbon neutrality is based on two main aspects: a reduction in emissions in production and the purchase of carbon offsets. The plaintiffs doubt the latter in particular. They argue that two of the carbon offset projects that Apple relies on have not produced "real" emissions reductions.
The climate projects in question
The lawsuit names two specific climate protection projects that Apple relies on:
- The Chyulu Hills Project in Kenya
- The Guinan Project in China
The plaintiffs claim that these projects are not suitable as carbon offset measures for Apple. The reason: According to them, the emission savings through these projects would have been achieved even without Apple's support or involvement. Therefore, Apple cannot credibly claim that these projects are offsetting its emissions. The lawsuit states:
Because Apple's carbon neutrality claims are based on the effectiveness and legitimacy of these projects, Apple's carbon neutrality claims are false and misleading.
The plaintiffs are not only demanding damages from Apple, but also a court injunction prohibiting Apple from continuing to use the term “climate neutral” for its products, according to Reuters.
What does climate neutral actually mean?
The term "climate neutral" is not clearly defined legally and is interpreted differently by companies. In most cases, it does not mean that a product does not cause any CO₂ emissions, but that these are offset through measures such as CO₂ compensation. This is often done through projects that, for example, plant trees or promote renewable energies. Critics, however, complain that many of these projects do not have the desired effect. Particularly problematic are projects that already exist and do not result in any additional emission savings. If companies use such projects to offset their emissions, this could be described as greenwashing - that is, deliberately misleading consumers through exaggerated environmental promises.
Apple's other "climate-neutral" products
The Apple Watch was not the only product that Apple advertised as carbon neutral. Since 2024, the company has also introduced the M4 Mac mini as the first carbon neutral Mac. In addition, the Apple Watch Series 10 expanded the range of carbon neutral watches. However, after the current lawsuit, the question arises whether these products should also be examined more closely. If Apple's CO₂ offsets are questionable, then the company's entire sustainability strategy could be on shaky ground.
What impact could the lawsuit have?
If Apple has actually made misleading statements, this could have far-reaching consequences. In addition to possible fines, consumer confidence in Apple's sustainability strategy would suffer considerably. In addition, the lawsuit could be a signal for other companies to examine their climate promises more closely. If Apple is forced to stop using the term "climate neutral," this could also affect the marketing of other sustainable products. Companies would then have to be more transparent about how exactly they save or offset emissions.
Climate neutrality as a point of contention: What does the process mean for Apple?
The lawsuit against Apple shows that consumers are increasingly questioning whether large companies are keeping their sustainability promises. There are many accusations of greenwashing, especially in the technology industry. Apple is now faced with the challenge of proving that the climate neutrality of its products actually meets the advertised standards. It remains to be seen whether Apple can defend itself in court or whether it will have to revise its strategy. One thing is clear, however: the discussion about climate neutrality and CO₂ compensation is far from over. (Image: Apple)
- Apple faces fine in France – Will ATT be deactivated soon?
- Spotify urges EU to punish Apple for market dominance
- Apple and EU regulation: Next decision in March
- British demand to Apple alarms US intelligence
- Apple stops iCloud encryption after UK order
- iCloud and encryption: Apple in conflict with the FBI
